In another thread much earlier today I pointed out to you that particular book was self-published and not from one of the 5 publishers accused of price-fixing. 50 Shades can be sold for whatever the retailer wishes. Of course that doesn't mean you can't continue making believe it's proof that the price-fixing never occurred. Wouldn't it more honest of you to find one from one of the accused publisher's if you think you have proof that no prices have been fixed?

Actually it's from the one of the "big six", why they aren't part of this is a mystery and the book I selected is from the current NYT best sellers list.

Perhaps you'd like to refute my link showing eBooks from a major publishing house, who obviously agreed to Apple's terms (as evidenced by the fact their books are available in iBooks) with anything at all comparing real world pricing between Amazon and Apple?

What it does show is publishers are free to set their own price and that is indeterminate of Apple.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

Actually it's from the largest of the "big six", why they aren't part of this is a mystery and the book I selected is from the current NYT best sellers list.

Perhaps you'd like to refute my link showing eBooks from a major publishing house, who obviously agreed to Apple's terms (as evidenced by the fact their books are available in iBooks) with anything at all comparing real world pricing between Amazon and Apple?

What it does show is publishers are free to set their own price and that is indeterminate of Apple.

You have absolutely shown proof that if the other 5 largest publisher's did not set the minimum advertised price then price competition will happen and lower pricing can be used to attract customers. Thank you.

Dude- quotation marks mean just that- I'm quoting something. It has been said over and over on here that that is what Apple did. I never said Apple said.....

Who said they ONLY did it to save the industry? Steve Jobs said many times that he convinced the labels to sell songs for $0.99 in iTunes by arguing that this will help Apple sells more iPods and help the labels fight piracy. This is not a secrete Apple agenda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iSheldon

So you'll defend greedy publishers but not greedy music producers all on Apple's behalf. Nice.

Where did I defend the publishers? I am not against nor with the publishers. However, I am strongly with the idea that copyright holders have the right to set their copyrighted material prices. The market should decide whether or not their prices are high.

Perhaps you'd like to refute my link showing eBooks from a major publishing house, who obviously agreed to Apple's terms (as evidenced by the fact their books are available in iBooks) with anything at all comparing real world pricing between Amazon and Apple?

What it does show is publishers are free to set their own price and that is indeterminate of Apple.

Random House isn't one of the 5 publishers that are part of the alleged price fixing scheme.

Yet they sell iBooks, including best sellers at the same price as Amazon which shows that price has nothing whatsoever to do with Apple.

Apple merely set up a competitive marketplace.

Apple also have the right to be presumed innocent in spite of the DoJ witch hunt.

Hill60, read this summation starting with "It dropped that terrible idea quickly", about midway down the page. It explains it much better than I can and uses the DoJ document itself for clarification. I suspect you've just misunderstood what the claims are.http://www.businessinsider.com/doj-l...ks-2012-4?op=1

Where did I defend the publishers? I am not against nor with the publishers. However, I am strongly with the idea that copyright holders have the right to set their copyrighted material prices. The market should decide whether or not their prices are high.

Ok- so now you'll defend copyright holders in publishing but not recording artists who also have want to set their own prices which Apple will not allow? I suppose they don't have the right to set their own prices too?
Keep digging.......

Ok- so now you'll defend copyright holders in publishing but not recording artists who also have want to set their own prices which Apple will not allow? I suppose they don't have the right to set their own prices too?
Keep digging.......

Again, where did I say I am against the music artist setting their price? No one is stopping them from increasing their prices. Actually, they already did increase their prices by %30. The TV shows increased their prices as well. It seems you have been living in a cave for the last 5 years. It's free market.

I am not going to waste more time replying to your posts because you clearly have a habit of accusing people of saying things they didn't say. Keep talking to yourself from now on.

Its because Microsoft influences the Australian Government. You can't sneeze in government in Australian unless you first ask Microsoft for permission. Thats why the Australian and State governments pay huge licensing fees to Microsoft for products that they could get for free or substantially lower price elsewhere - " Libre Office, iWork, MySQL" bet your life you couldn't, a Microsoft rep would be at your door threatening your career. This is why there is soo much Apple hate its the Microsoft puppet masters! - Good to see me getting value for my hard earned tax dollars!!!!!

I have two concerns about all this. First, why should retailers be allowed to compete with each other on price when they add absolutely zero value to the product created by the author of an eBook? Second, if the DoJ (and Amazon) are successful in their attack on the Agency Model, what does that mean for authors of eBooks who use software like iBooks Author to sell eBooks completely independently of established book publishers?

I am strongly in favour of removing as many of the steps that separate authors from readers as is possible, and that includes traditional book publishers, wholesalers and retailers who all make profits from the work of authors. And if Apple has helped clear away some of the parasitic pricing that goes on in between author and reader, then that is a fantastic thing, and the DoJ, Amazon and the whole book publishing/distribution industry can go and get stuffed.

There are far, far too many businesses that make 'parasitic' profits simply by being 'middle men' is the link between the producer of goods ( in this case authors) and the consumers of goods (in this case readers).

So, go Apple! Fight the bastards on behalf of all authors and their readers.

Its because Microsoft influences the Australian Government. You can't sneeze in government in Australian unless you first ask Microsoft for permission. Thats why the Australian and State governments pay huge licensing fees to Microsoft for products that they could get for free or substantially lower price elsewhere - " Libre Office, iWork, MySQL" bet your life you couldn't, a Microsoft rep would be at your door threatening your career. This is why there is soo much Apple hate its the Microsoft puppet masters! - Good to see me getting value for my hard earned tax dollars!!!!!

Our Tax office doesn't even work with Macs, no elodgement for YOU!

Maybe the ACCC should look into why the tax office requires the use of Windows in order to lodge an electronic tax return.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

Its because Microsoft influences the Australian Government. You can't sneeze in government in Australian unless you first ask Microsoft for permission. Thats why the Australian and State governments pay huge licensing fees to Microsoft for products that they could get for free or substantially lower price elsewhere - " Libre Office, iWork, MySQL" bet your life you couldn't, a Microsoft rep would be at your door threatening your career. This is why there is soo much Apple hate its the Microsoft puppet masters! - Good to see me getting value for my hard earned tax dollars!!!!!

Yes. The outright antagonism to Apple products in the IT departments of Australian government agencies and businesses is astounding and has been going on for decades now. I suggest that this is simply because if Microsoft platforms were removed from IT departments, IT managers who have to cut their support staff and expenditure budgets in half, and staff who have to use Wintel computers would be more productive and less frustrated by cheap and crappy computers - and that just wouldn't do, would it!

It is way, way past time that Australian CEOs woke up to the Microsoft-inspired FUD that comes out of their IT Departments and told them to get into the 21st Century.

I have two concerns about all this. First, why should retailers be allowed to compete with each other on price when they add absolutely zero value to the product created by the author of an eBook? Second, if the DoJ (and Amazon) are successful in their attack on the Agency Model, what does that mean for authors of eBooks who use software like iBooks Author to sell eBooks completely independently of established book publishers?

I am strongly in favour of removing as many of the steps that separate authors from readers as is possible, and that includes traditional book publishers, wholesalers and retailers who all make profits from the work of authors. And if Apple has helped clear away some of the parasitic pricing that goes on in between author and reader, then that is a fantastic thing, and the DoJ, Amazon and the whole book publishing/distribution industry can go and get stuffed.

There are far, far too many businesses that make 'parasitic' profits simply by being 'middle men' is the link between the producer of goods ( in this case authors) and the consumers of goods (in this case readers).

So, go Apple! Fight the bastards on behalf of all authors and their readers.

What nonsense, the same can be said about just about every other product and retailer out there. Using your logic nothing should ever be on sale because the retailer didn't nothing to create the product. Asinine at its greatest.

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX

What nonsense, the same can be said about just about every other product and retailer out there. Using your logic nothing should ever be on sale because the retailer didn't nothing to create the product. Asinine at its greatest.

My comments relate to eBooks, not physical goods that need to be physically distributed. There is NO need for a complicated supply chain for products that can, and are, distributed electronically. The DoJ case is about as silly as trying to shut down Apple's App Store because software wholesalers and retailers have been cut out of the loop between developers and their customers.